I would say if you are on the floor talking to the dog, and he is completely uninterested, then you may have an aloof dog. Of course the dog may also be stressed, and inattention is a stress behavior. Not an easy thing to read in a shelter.

if i brought rufus to one of her seminars like on her video, he would be interested in everyone and everything else other then sue sternberg. if she brought out a doll baby he would think it was a toy. he would also jump on her, and be a royal pain. he would fail her test thats for sure.. yet he is a great dog, and is certified for therapy work. i would love to bring him and pretend he is from a shelter and see what she says about him.. alot of dogs dont do good in shelters. and alot are not lovey dovey. she prefers the fearful dogs that cower and show submission

A dog doesn't look at her, it's "aloof" and should be euthed. A dog who does look her in the eye is "dominant aggressive" and should be euthed, likewise a dog who growls while playing tug, especially if it's a pit bull.

This from someone who had a child biter as her "Pet of the Month". The dog was not a pit bull and didn't actually "break the skin" so it was okay.

To be fair, most of her test, WHEN PROPERLY ADMINISTERED is a good indicator of personality. I would have added a caveat with each test that there are reactions (such as tugging loudly) which slate the dog to a savvy home only, as opposed to a normal pet home. None of my dogs would have been good in a normal pet home. But the methodology itself is not flawed. It sounds like her metrics of what is an adoptable dog when she herself administers the test is off the chart unreasonable.

SHe was the first to write all this down, and deserves some credit there. However it does seem she has gone of the deep end.

OK. I'm sorry, but no matter how you give a test, how can a dog mistake a kid's plastic baby for a real one? I'm not a trainer, but I know that if I wiggle a stuffy in my arms my dog will nibble it, but she sure dosen't nibble on my niece. How is that accurate in any way?

Sure it's a good thing to have that kind of tests, but they need to be properly done, and to be set in realistic limits.

I think if a dog is severely food aggressive, the hand would work. The iffy ones, or ones in play drive, it would not. As I said, a good tester would see the difference between a toy drive bite/tug on the hand, and a snap with food aggression.

My point is the test itself is not without merit. I don't think she is a genius for figuring it out though, she is just the first to write it down.